TheKitttenGuard Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 My threshold for being "convinced" was passed when OJ did book and video "If I did it". I am finding some irony is the defense team questioning of how the evidence is gathered as very accurate. It might of got OJ in a way not expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Kay Fury said: It was but that just seems like an odd way to go about appealing to the jury. Acquittal through home decor I think it just plays to the idea that you can buy justice in this country. Given that OJ's defense team was so expansive (and expensive) they had the time and manpower to cover minute details such as this. It's hard to argue with results, ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 6 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said: Fair enough. I assume, then, you aren't familiar with the evidence that was gathered. That would be a mistaken assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 25 minutes ago, sologdin said: the evidence with which i am familiar is that an investigator of the crime perjured himself with regard to his own racism. If that's the only evidence with which some folks are familiar, then I'm unsurprised at the lingering doubt of his guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 11 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said: If that's the only evidence with which some folks are familiar, then I'm unsurprised at the lingering doubt of his guilt. Eh, once something like that comes to light it casts a shadow of doubt on all the evidence that the police collected. I do think that Simpson was guilty, but I can understand why the jury ruled the way they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 The FX series that is playing right now is very entertaining. I'm not bothered by the retired cop having that knife. OJ was already aquitted and is serving time for a different crime and its not like he can be tried for the same crime again so that knife (to me) is just a piece of memorabilia now. No different than a Jesse James gun, a Lizzy Borden axe, a Manson machete, or a Nazi flag or something. Some people actually even collect serial killer items, it may seem macabre to you or I, but it it's not hurting anyone imo. As for it still being an "open" case that's just an exercise in ass covering to obscure that they failed to convict him in the original case, which is another thing that didnt bother me too much either. If Nixon never did a day in jail then a downtown LA jury gets to let its local icon/hoodlum off scot free as well, it's like the Moses principle, (a middle finger for a middle finger) and we all get a great FX TV show, what more could we ask for out of Hollyland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Eh, once something like that comes to light it casts a shadow of doubt on all the evidence that the police collected. I do think that Simpson was guilty, but I can understand why the jury ruled the way they did. Pretty much. I don't think justice was served, but the law might have been. More, I see it as an example of how much difference money makes in the judicial system. There was a poor black guy arrested for almost exactly the same crime with roughly the same evidence on the same day, and he was serving a life sentence in maximum security before O.J. even entered a plea. I think all that money bought him some info on the investigating team that make it hard to trust them and their conduct in the case. Which is...I mean, racism amongst cops is hardly rare, so is any minority arrest immune? But, still, I think you have to err on the burden being on the prosecution presenting an impartial investigation, and I think it was shown to be not that. But I'd be very surprised if it turned out to have been anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: The FX series that is playing right now is very entertaining. I'm not bothered by the retired cop having that knife. OJ was already aquitted and is serving time for a different crime and its not like he can be tried for the same crime again so that knife (to me) is just a piece of memorabilia now. No different than a Jesse James gun, a Lizzy Borden axe, a Manson machete, or a Nazi flag or something. Some people actually even collect serial killer items, it may seem macabre to you or I, but it it's not hurting anyone imo. As for it still being an "open" case that's just an exercise in ass covering to obscure that they failed to convict him in the original case, which is another thing that didnt bother me too much either. If Nixon never did a day in jail then a downtown LA jury gets to let its local icon/hoodlum off scot free as well, it's like the Moses principle, (a middle finger for a middle finger) and we all get a great FX TV show, what more could we ask for out of Hollyland? It's an open case because the murders are legally "unsolved." The fact that this knife was held on to by a police officer is a huge deal and highly, highly inappropriate. Imagine, for a moment, that OJ did NOT actually kill Ron and Nicole. Imagine that the knife contains DNA from Ron and Nicole and the fingerprints of an unidentified third party. This would be a huge deal and potentially the key to finding the killer. As unlikely as you think that outcome may be, this is how any police officer SHOULD be thinking. There is a lot of work out there on how cognitive biases - specifically confirmation bias - obstruct real investigations because of the extreme narrowing of focus by the police once they believe they've identified the killer, which often leads them to ignore or minimize evidence pointing in other directions. While the odds may be against it showing any definitive, this is a potentially explosive and key piece of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 42 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Eh, once something like that comes to light it casts a shadow of doubt on all the evidence that the police collected. I do think that Simpson was guilty, but I can understand why the jury ruled the way they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I worked in the Criminal Courts building during the OJ trial, so I kind of got a unique bird's eye view of the circus that was this trial. I too understand why the jury voted as it did. I think it was a combination of superior lawyering and a feeling on the part of black folks that this was one of those rare opportunities to protect one of their own, after decades of being abused by the system. I can't say I blame them, actually. I'd feel the same way. But I personally have no doubt whatsoever that it was Orenthal James Simpson who committed these crimes. Although he's sitting in prison right now for an unrelated (somewhat) crime, he's up for parole in 2017. Should be interesting to see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said: I worked in the Criminal Courts building during the OJ trial, so I kind of got a unique bird's eye view of the circus that was this trial. I too understand why the jury voted as it did. I think it was a combination of superior lawyering and a feeling on the part of black folks that this was one of those rare opportunities to protect one of their own, after decades of being abused by the system. I can't say I blame them, actually. I'd feel the same way. But I personally have no doubt whatsoever that it was Orenthal James Simpson who committed these crimes. Although he's sitting in prison right now for an unrelated (somewhat) crime, he's up for parole in 2017. Should be interesting to see what happens. Was the prosecution giving into pressure and having O.J. try on the glove seen as a momentous blunder at the time? In review it seems like a first-year error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Was the prosecution giving into pressure and having O.J. try on the glove seen as a momentous blunder at the time? In review it seems like a first-year error. They were sooooo certain that they had enough evidence, mountains of it, in fact, that they felt rather invincible. Bad judgment for sure. Some judges I knew in the building were saying privately that the two lead attorneys for the prosecution were a bad choice to handle this case even before it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Tears of Lys said: They were sooooo certain that they had enough evidence, mountains of it, in fact, that they felt rather invincible. Bad judgment for sure. Some judges I knew in the building were saying privately that the two lead attorneys for the prosecution were a bad choice to handle this case even before it started. Yeah, figured. I mean, from what I've read they had talked about it beforehand at length, and knew various reasons it might not fit, and had clearly determined to not go there, so...just mind-boggling. No-upside kind of think...if it fits, like ok, gloves all kinda fit, if it doesn't, horrible optics. Wtf are you thinking? i'd assumed it was down to inexperienced prosecutor getting flustered/bullied by relentless veteran lawyers, but the arrogance angle fits too, though if anything in a worse light. I just wondered if it played that way in real time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astromech Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I always felt the prosecution lost that case more than the defense won it. Whenever I think of that case, I always picture Johnny Cochrane walking around the courtroom with the ski cap on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Cop 1: dude someone gave me a bloody knife from OJ's house today. Cop 2: rad, keep it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Quote Here's another fun fact, per the LAPD spokesperson, the officer in question ended up with the knife because he was working off-duty for a movie that was filming on the street outside the house when whoever found the knife (LAPD hasn't confirmed that it was a construction worker) came up and gave it to him. The more I hear about this story the more I love it; if only because it harkens back to a simpler time in our national discourse. Only in LA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 On March 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: It's an open case because the murders are legally "unsolved." The fact that this knife was held on to by a police officer is a huge deal and highly, highly inappropriate. Imagine, for a moment, that OJ did NOT actually kill Ron and Nicole. Imagine that the knife contains DNA from Ron and Nicole and the fingerprints of an unidentified third party. This would be a huge deal and potentially the key to finding the killer. As unlikely as you think that outcome may be, this is how any police officer SHOULD be thinking. There is a lot of work out there on how cognitive biases - specifically confirmation bias - obstruct real investigations because of the extreme narrowing of focus by the police once they believe they've identified the killer, which often leads them to ignore or minimize evidence pointing in other directions. While the odds may be against it showing any definitive, this is a potentially explosive and key piece of evidence. Yes but after this many years and this dubious of a custody chain how could anyone trust whatever evidence the knife may have on it? There are endless possibilities for tampering involved in such a circumstance it would seem? Anyone with an axe to grind and enough resources could frame some poor bastard this way, I could never trust that knife as real evidence (given these circumstancs of time and custody involved) and would rather it just go in a glass display at the Forum or something lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/4/2016 at 2:17 PM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Eh, once something like that comes to light it casts a shadow of doubt on all the evidence that the police collected. I do think that Simpson was guilty, but I can understand why the jury ruled the way they did. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Writhen Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Is there really anyone who lived through the 90s that thinks he didn't do it? Must be impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 53 minutes ago, Rychard Wrythen said: Is there really anyone who lived through the 90s that thinks he didn't do it? Must be impossible Yes. The twelve members of the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.